Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence."

can you describe logically what i'm equating?

 

"I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is.  I didn't rebut something you never said.  I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion."

i've quoted experts in the area to back what i've posted

you didn't rebut anything i said, can you for one quote a physicists who says that the laws of physics are perfect as they are and will never be modified as we learn more?

secondly i called your post a strawman because you are claiming that i'm saying that we have to change our laws of physics to accommodate singularities, when i'm actually saying that its a possibility and its also a possibility that they do not even exist

 

"Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them.  This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics."

so... you think our physics laws are perfect right now and we'll never have to rethink anything we think we know right now... well that's amusing i guess

this is the same as that other guy telling me that no aspect of evolution can be debated... you guys have a funny understanding of science for sure

Do you not understand the difference between rewriting something and adding to something?

Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics.  M-Theory is a solid candidate for answering questions beyond the Standard Model but it doesn't rewrite it.  Again, the fact you think they will be rewritten suggests you don't understand physics.  A meter is still a meter. Gravitational lensing is still gravitational lensing.  The laws that mathematically describe those aspects of physics do not require a rewrite simply because we develop an equation adequately describing physics in a singularity.  It simply becomes an added chapter in our body of knowledge.

"Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics. "

yes i'm aware but i'm saying that to say that our laws edit:are perfect is stupid, there is always the possibility that we have to revise and update what we think we know

that you think otherwise shows me that you don't understand science

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 17 January 2018

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

Do you not understand the difference between rewriting something and adding to something?

Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics.  M-Theory is a solid candidate for answering questions beyond the Standard Model but it doesn't rewrite it.  Again, the fact you think they will be rewritten suggests you don't understand physics.  A meter is still a meter. Gravitational lensing is still gravitational lensing.  The laws that mathematically describe those aspects of physics do not require a rewrite simply because we develop an equation adequately describing physics in a singularity.  It simply becomes an added chapter in our body of knowledge.

"Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics. "

yes i'm aware but i'm saying that to say that our laws our perfect is stupid, there is always the possibility that we have to revise and update what we think we know

that you think otherwise shows me that you don't understand science

You keep saying rewrite.  I keep saying add onto.

Do you understand the difference?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics. "

yes i'm aware but i'm saying that to say that our laws our perfect is stupid, there is always the possibility that we have to revise and update what we think we know

that you think otherwise shows me that you don't understand science

You keep saying rewrite.  I keep saying add onto.

Do you understand the difference?

ok let me put it like this since you lack reading comprehension or something

do you think we are right about everything right now?



o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

You keep saying rewrite.  I keep saying add onto.

Do you understand the difference?

ok let me put it like this since you lack reading comprehension or something

do you think we are right about everything right now?

So you don't know the difference.  Got it.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

ok let me put it like this since you lack reading comprehension or something

do you think we are right about everything right now?

So you don't know the difference.  Got it.

lmao dude there is a difference but the point is that i don't think and i'm sure the whole scientific community agrees with me that the current laws we have are perfect

they are subject to change over time as we learn more... sure they may not but we have to be open to the possibility which you amusingly enough are not, meaning you are anti-science

edit: and that includes what we think we know right now

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 17 January 2018

Around the Network

None, the threat is technological advances without a moral compass.
Science have no moral limits, religion is bounded by its own moral limits, it can go as far as their dogmas allow. There are, therefore, dangerous religions that demand violence, but most of them are clearly about a spiritual path, being to salvation and heaven (christianity), being to enlightment or nirvana (spiritualism, budhism).


Now, science is the methodical search for knowledge, it is neutral, in such boundaries of description.
Technology, in other hand, is like a unstopabble force, many times imoral by its own nature: change and enhance, being the environment and the human being, and animals, everything, without a moral compass or a brakes device to allow us the time to really think this:


- It is possible, but should we do it?


Mankind is, in part, forgeting spirituality and diving in a spiral of anxiety, pleasures without end and depression.
Tech will provide more and more of the poison that started the problem at first.


And in the end, not only deadly devices like bombs, but also the dream of defeating death with technology will be a curse.
Think about a mankind that almost abolishes death, but at the cost of their very souls: abortions, death camps of the imperfect, a clean and sterile reality where God is not invited.
We dream of getting there, but it will be our downfall.


It is like the monkey´s pawn, the very thing we wish for is our doom.
Without soul, man is a monster, we see it every day: screaming machines that can not stand to the minimal amount of disconfort, little trolls instead of humans.
It is a somber, dark and sad tomorrow technological advances without moral compass will bring.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

So you don't know the difference.  Got it.

lmao dude there is a difference but the point is that i don't think and i'm sure the whole scientific community agrees with me that the current laws we have are perfect

they are subject to change over time as we learn more... sure they may not but we have to be open to the possibility which you amusingly enough are not, meaning you are anti-science

Did Relativity rewrite classical mechanics?  Do we still not use them?  Do they not mathematically describe the common large object, low speed physics? 

Or did Relativity add to it?  Expand upon it?  Mathematically explain areas that classical mechanics did not account for? 

 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

lmao dude there is a difference but the point is that i don't think and i'm sure the whole scientific community agrees with me that the current laws we have are perfect

they are subject to change over time as we learn more... sure they may not but we have to be open to the possibility which you amusingly enough are not, meaning you are anti-science

Did Relativity rewrite classical mechanics?  Do we still not use them?  Do they not mathematically describe the common large object, low speed physics? 

Or did Relativity add to it?  Expand upon it?  Mathematically explain areas that classical mechanics did not account for? 

 

"Did Relativity rewrite classical mechanics?  Do we still not use them?  Do they not mathematically describe the common large object, low speed physics? ..."

this is irrelevant to what i'm saying... how could you possibly not see that lol

 

can you know for sure that everything put forward in classical mechanics and relativity is completely infallible and will never be rethought in the future... you should if you understand science

why are you treating this like a religion? aren't you against religion? lol



o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

Did Relativity rewrite classical mechanics?  Do we still not use them?  Do they not mathematically describe the common large object, low speed physics? 

Or did Relativity add to it?  Expand upon it?  Mathematically explain areas that classical mechanics did not account for? 

 

"Did Relativity rewrite classical mechanics?  Do we still not use them?  Do they not mathematically describe the common large object, low speed physics? ..."

this is irrelevant to what i'm saying... how could you possibly not see that lol

 

can you know for sure that everything put forward in classical mechanics and relativity is completely infallible and will never be rethought in the future... you should if you understand science

why are you treating this like a religion? aren't you against religion? lol

You think someday we will really rewrite Ohms law?  Or Newton's Laws of Motion?  Pascal's Law? Hooke's Law?


Perhaps this is better stated this way.  Applied physics probably won't have any reason to change....only added to.  Experimental physics will change because that is what is for and it develops the additions toward applied physics and, the 3rd branch, theoretical physics.  Theoretical physics lead to experiential physics.  Proposed and fringe theories of theoretical physics are going to be changed, altered, added to, etc...  But applied physics are pretty damn well locked in and unlikely to change regardless of what happens at the theoretical physics level.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Nobody agrees with you.

I really can't hold your hand through life. Either you spend some time understanding things or you pretend to understand things incorrectly and go through life with others thinking you're an idiot.

Your call, sport.

lmao do you understand the diagrams that i posted?

tell me what the diagrams are saying and how they apply to my argument and you'll get a cookie

You have a track record of misunderstanding definitions. You're not worth my time dude. Had you demonstrated any ability to recognize and move forward from the multitude of mistakes you've committed already I'd continue, but that isn't the case so my breath would be wasted educating someone so clearly deficient in many crucial respects as to be considered beyond hope.

Good luck to you in your menial existence.